4 ms·

How does a copyright work? In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire".

How does a copyright work? In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire". That's what your customer will expect, anyway. I mean, would you pay someone to build a thing for you and think didn't own the copyright on the thing? how can I make it so the contract would hold up in a court, if, for example, they refused me payment? You know what's better than a contract? Getting paid in advance. Whether it's 10%, 30%, 50% or 100%. You should work your ass off for your customers. But if they haven't paid you, they aren't really a customer, are they? If you didn't get any upfront payment, ask for something once you have any deliverable to show. Show proof of work and a reasonable client should be willing to send money your way. Worried about getting paid? Establish that they will pay as soon as possible. Also, a contract that holds up in court and results in a judgement in your favor is no guarantee of payment. A judgement means you can send a debt to collections. But the collections agency will extract a hefty fee and it may take months or years to collect. It seems like you're focusing on what can go wrong. Ignore that stuff. Focus on building trust and rapport with your clients. How should I value my time? Is my time worth $20 an hour? $40? Less? More? Abandon the concept of time. Think instead of services. What services are you providing? What are these services worth to your customer? Approach this from their point of view, find out what they're willing to pay, not the minimum you're willing to charge. Start out high. Charge a rate that seems too high. If the customer says "no" find out why. It may not be the price, but some other concern. If the price is too high tell them you're open to negotiate, ask for them for a counter-offer.

scarecrowbob 12y ago
"In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire". That's what your customer will expect, anyway. I mean, would you pay someone to build a thing for you and think didn't own the copyright on the thing?" I don't think that this is true, at least in the US; the default is not work-for-hire, the default is that creators own works. While it is possible that I'm mistaken, I'd imagine that it is jus the case that you're generally working in situations where it isn't an issue (for instance, you don't want to reuse the code, the folks you're working with don't specifically care, or something). Otherwise, I agree with you.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire". This is generally not true in US copyright law. In US copyright law, a "work made for hire" is either made by an employee in the scope of employment, or is one of certain classes of commissioned for one of several specific purposes enumerated in the law where there is a written agreement signed by both parties specifically designating it as a work made for hire. If it is not done by an employee in the scope of employment, then if it is not also commissioned for one of the purposes explicitly described in the law or, even if it is, if there is not a written agreement designating it as a work made for hire, then its not a work made for hire. Note that the purposes enumerated in the law include commissions: * as a contribution to a collective work * as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work * as a translation * as a supplementary work * as a compilation * as an instructional text * as a test * as answer material for a test * as an atlas ...and that's it. Most specially commissioned software won't fit into one of those categories, so even with an explicit written agreement purporting to designate a work as one made for hire, it still won't actually be a work made for hire for copyright purposes, and the copyright will rest with the creator. see 17 USC Secs. 101, 201. > That's what your customer will expect, anyway. If your customers expect that, they will generally be wrong. > I mean, would you pay someone to build a thing for you and think didn't own the copyright on the thing? To the extent that someone commissioning a work that is not in the categories that can be a work for hire in US law wants to own the copyright of a work created in the US, they should seek to recieve a signed transfer of copyright, otherwise they will be disappointed. see 17 USC Sec. 204.

scarecrowbob 12y ago

"In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire". That's what your customer will expect, anyway. I mean, would you pay someone to build a thing for you and think didn't own the copyright on the thing?" I don't think that this is true, at least in the US; the default is not work-for-hire, the default is that creators own works. While it is possible that I'm mistaken, I'd imagine that it is jus the case that you're generally working in situations where it isn't an issue (for instance, you don't want to reuse the code, the folks you're working with don't specifically care, or something). Otherwise, I agree with you.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> In practice it's simple - if you're paid to build a thing for someone, that someone owns the thing. It's known as a "work for hire". This is generally not true in US copyright law. In US copyright law, a "work made for hire" is either made by an employee in the scope of employment, or is one of certain classes of commissioned for one of several specific purposes enumerated in the law where there is a written agreement signed by both parties specifically designating it as a work made for hire. If it is not done by an employee in the scope of employment, then if it is not also commissioned for one of the purposes explicitly described in the law or, even if it is, if there is not a written agreement designating it as a work made for hire, then its not a work made for hire. Note that the purposes enumerated in the law include commissions: * as a contribution to a collective work * as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work * as a translation * as a supplementary work * as a compilation * as an instructional text * as a test * as answer material for a test * as an atlas ...and that's it. Most specially commissioned software won't fit into one of those categories, so even with an explicit written agreement purporting to designate a work as one made for hire, it still won't actually be a work made for hire for copyright purposes, and the copyright will rest with the creator. see 17 USC Secs. 101, 201. > That's what your customer will expect, anyway. If your customers expect that, they will generally be wrong. > I mean, would you pay someone to build a thing for you and think didn't own the copyright on the thing? To the extent that someone commissioning a work that is not in the categories that can be a work for hire in US law wants to own the copyright of a work created in the US, they should seek to recieve a signed transfer of copyright, otherwise they will be disappointed. see 17 USC Sec. 204.